Has Labour got the bottle?
Other articles
6 | the case for charitable government
Until government can meet its public service ideals,
charities should be encouraged to bridge the gap,
argues Tamsin James
8 | tough on crime?
Labour often claim credit for reducing crime, but could do
more to prevent it, believes Emma Carr
10 | identity crisis
By developing a story of Britishness, Labour can reinvigorate the Britishness debate, and reclaim British identity
as an electoral asset, contends Sarah T’Rula
12 | the grass isn’t always greener
Green taxes are for government, not opposition, writes
Andrew Hanson
13 | on the war path
Gordon Brown must make the declaration of war a thing
of the past, believes Dan Whittle

22 | change to win?
Both the Tories and Labour have forgotten that the
Conservatives are entirely capable of change, argues
Edward Robinson
24 | independence day?
On the eve of elections to Holyrood, Scottish Labour
stand in stark contrast to the SNP’s inconsistency, writes
Joe Fagan
Regular items
4 | from the editor
a letter from Emma Carr
5 | from the chair
a word from Conor McGinn
26 | calendar of events
a diary of past and future events from the young fabians

Anticipations, like all publications of the Fabian Society, and the Young Fabians, represents not
the collective view of the Society, but only the views of the individuals whose articles it comprises.
The responsibility of the Society is limited to approving its publications as worthy of consideration
within the Labour movement.
Published by The Fabian Society, 11 Dartmouth Street, London, SW1H 9BN
Telephone: 0207 227 4900 | Facsimile: 0207 976 7153
Websites: www.fabian-society.org.uk and www.youngfabians.org.uk
Printed by Juma Printers, 44 Wellington Street, Sheffiel, S1 4HD
The editor would like to thank: Alex Baker and Angela Green.
3

anticipations | spring 2007

from
the editor
Emma Carr

e lcome to your new and improved
Anticipations. Now, I’m of the set of people that likes to point out that a thing
cannot be both new and improved, it
must surely be one or the other, but I think you’ll
agree that merely new or improved would not fully
encapsulate the wonder that is the new look
Anticipations. I am therefore allowing the phrase new
and improved, just this once.
Anyway, I would like to thank Young Fabian member and design impresario Alex Baker for his help in
redesigning. By help, I mean he did it and I said
encouraging things every now and again. Thank you
Alex.
Ok, now that we’ve all been introduced to the magazine, its shiny new look and the genius behind it, on
with the show.
For this edition of Anticipations we asked you to tell
us about the policies that
a Labour Government
should introduce but hasn’t, can’t or won’t.
And you delivered, so
thank you.
Some of the ideas so
vehemently argued for in
the pub after a few pints
didn’t quite make it
down on paper – 100%
inheritance tax was one interesting idea, although my
personal favourite was outlawing reality TV and Clist celebrities.
On balance, it’s probably a good thing that these
arguments have not made it to the pages of this magazine. Instead, we have articles on topics including
green taxes, education, crime policy and charities – all
very worthy but none designed specifically to keep
Jade Goody off the telly, unfortunately.
Despite this obvious and regrettable flaw, the articles make interesting reading so please read on - especially if you’re a policy maker, of course.
In addition to designing the policies of the future,
Young Fabian members have contributed articles on
Scottish independence, the French Presidential election and the need for a Labour Party narrative.
Our main interview this month is with Ed Balls,
Economic Secretary to the Treasury and MP for
Normanton. The interview explores the key policy
issues of health and social care funding, the gap
between the rich and the poor, mixed gender football
in schools and offices the size of postage stamps.
We’ve also got some pictures from the New

W

Members’ Reception, which was one of our most successful receptions ever, not just because of the social
magician either – although he was undoubtedly the
best socialist magician I’ve ever seen.
So, given the new design and all the hard-hitting
terribly wonderful articles, I’m sure you’ll all agree
that this edition, despite being a little later than
hoped, has been worth the wait. However, that does
mean that there is a shorter turn around for the next
edition, so you need to write fast.
The theme of the next edition will be Labour Party
leadership. So, if you’ve got an opinion about the
who, how, when and where of Labour Party leadership, past, present or future, please let us know. As
ever, email me your ideas as soon as possible. The
final deadline for contributions will be May 28th.
In addition, we’ll hopefully be interviewing all the
deputy leadership candidates. So, if you have any
questions for the candidates, please email them to
me as soon as possible.
If you would like to contribute in any other way,
please email me and let me
know. Help is always welcomed.
So thanks again to everyone who contributed and
keep up the good work. If
you’d like to be more active with the society in other
ways, please come along to one of our events and
meet other members and the exec.
Also, as if to prove that we in the Young Fabians are
properly ‘down with the kids’ we have set up a Young
Fabian Facebook group.
If you’re a Facebook member, join the YF group and
keep up-to-date with all the events and campaigning
that’s going on. If you’re not a facebook member, you
probably think I’m talking gobbledegook right now.
Go to www.facebook.com and sign up, put your profile
up and then join the Young Fabian group.
So, once again, I hope to see you at the next Young
Fabian event.
Oh, and don’t forget to book early for the boat party
and for the trip to Edinburgh festival this year as
places are limited (for more information, see the
future events section on page 26).

Given the new design and all
the hard-hitting terribly
wonderful articles, I’m sure
you’ll agree that this edition,
despite being a little later than
hoped, has been worth the wait.

4

Emma Carr
Editor, Anticipations
ecarr@youngfabians.org.uk

anticipations | spring 2007

from
the chair
Conor McGinn

s we make our way steadily through one of the
most important years in British politics since
1997, the Young Fabians as expected are at the
forefront of encouraging debate and discussion about the future direction and policies of the Labour
movement.
Young Fabians know that it is vital for our generation
of political activists to constantly strive for creative, innovative and sustainable policies that will continue the
efforts that have been made in the last ten years to
advance progressive politics in this country. Every single
member of the Young Fabians has their role to play in
that. Already this year we’ve employed various new
methods to ensure that our members can contribute to
this process, with telephone conferences, online discussion forums and of course our events with key members
of Government and party. Work is also well underway
with a pamphlet that we
hope to publish in the
autumn and our reinvigorated Schools Project will act
as a great tool for encouraging young people in schools
to be politically aware and
active in developing and
exploring their ideas.
There are also major electoral challenges that Labour
faces in the next couple of
weeks. It is absolutely essential that the wreckers in the
SNP and their allies in the opposition parties do not
destroy the massive benefits and progress that the
Labour-led Scottish Executive has delivered for
Scotland, within the United Kingdom and working in
partnership with the national Labour government. By
the same token the Tories and Plaid Cymru pose twin
threats to the achievements and progress that has been
delivered for Wales by the Labour administration in
Cardiff, again in cooperation with the Labour government. Young Fabians have been campaigning – as in
previous elections – in the key battlegrounds for Labour
in both elections. As well as the test faced by Scottish and
Welsh Labour, there are crucial local elections taking
place across England. Again, where there is a Labour
administration you will find stable, effective local government. We must not let the Tories and Lib Dems gain
a foothold anywhere in the country, something that they
would inevitably use as a springboard for any General
Election campaign in the next couple of years.
The Young Fabians continue to work closely with the
Fabian Society to examine some of the major issues fac-

A

ing our country. The themes of Britishness, constitutional and party reform and democracy, the environment,
Europe and international matters are all things that our
generation have a particular view on. It is important that
these debates are not solely conducted and led by those
whose views have been shaped by growing up in a
world that no longer exists, and who are, in many ways,
completely removed from the formative experiences of
our generation. It is our generation that will have to deal
with the consequences of global terrorism, multiculturalism, immigration, climate change, welfare reform and
many other issues.
We are also pleased to be working jointly with the
Fabian Society on a series of seminars to explore the key
issue of party reform. Young Fabians organised a very
timely debate on this and there is some really innovative
thinking and new ideas emerging from Young Fabian
members to help shape the
future direction of the
Labour movement. We are
also continuing to build
partnerships with our
friends and colleagues in
Young Labour and Labour
Students. All three groups
are hoping to organise a
joint event later in the year,
and are working closely
together to ensure that
young members of the
party are catered for in
terms of activities and events.
To finish on a personal note, it has been a fantastic few
months for the Northern Ireland peace process. Those of
us from there, and indeed many people born outside
Ireland, understand the huge significance of what is taking place in terms of the DUP and Sinn Féin working
together in a power-sharing devolved government.
It is due in no small part to the efforts of Tony Blair and
the Labour government that the Good Friday Agreement
has now been implemented in full, and when people talk
about the Prime Minister’s legacy they only have to visit
areas like the one where I grew up – South Armagh - to
see the huge difference and improvement in people’s
lives.
So that’s my lot for on this occasion. I hope to see you
at future events, and in the meantime don’t hesitate to let
me know if I or any other member of the Executive can
be of use to you. Finally, please do come along to our
events, contribute to the debates and let’s make sure that
we have our collective voice heard and play our part in
shaping the future.

Young Fabians know that it is
vital for our generation of
political activists to constantly
strive for creative, innovative
and sustainable policies that will
continue to advance
progressive politics in this
country.

5

anticipations | spring 2007

e
s
a
c
e
h
t for ble t
a
t
n
i
e
r
a
m
h
n
c ver
go

Until government can meet its public service ideals, charities should be
Tamsin James is a
Young Fabian member

6

he Charities Act of 2006
was the first major legislation on the Third Sector in
this country for four hundred years. It seems almost indecent
then, to suggest that it needs looking
at again so soon. Yet last
November's act was not intended as
a final definition, rather it has been
the catalyst for a debate on the role
of charities in public life and quite
how we should define them.
Whether it is enough simply to ask
that a charity works for the benefit
of the public.
Under David Cameron the
Conservatives have been presenting
a new friendly face. There has been a
push towards creating a new philanthropy, imitating the US model,
where it has always been the norm
for the rich to make large donations,
to set up foundations and to leave
bequests to their alma maters.
Labour needs to direct the debate in
the UK to the areas that fit with a
truly progressive agenda, not allow
the debate to be reactively driven.
The 2006 Act defined a charity as a
body that worked for the public ben-

T

efit and did not seek to make a profit. Yet the definition of 'public benefit' was left unqualified. This has
been left to the Charity Commission
to define, and a consultation is currently underway. Clearly it is correct
that private benefit must be incidental only and that the benefit need
only be for a section of the public

The problems of
social exclusion
could be tackled by
all charities.
rather than the public at large. More
important is the removal of the presumption that educational or religious organisations, or those working to alleviate poverty, were automatically working to the public benefit, and therefore charitable.
There are a number of advantages
for an institution that has gained
charitable status. Not least amongst
these are the financial benefits, such
as a significant cut in business rates
and an exemption from VAT. But

serious financial incentives such as
these should be tied to a serious
public benefit. An institution or an
organisation has to prove itself worthy of receiving the financial help
available to charities. And surely the
further they go to proving that they
meet the necessary requirements
(such as access to all, whatever
income, and providing a beneficial
service) the greater the assistance
that they receive should be?
TheTimes' letters column in the
last year has seen much of the bitter
battle that the removal of the educational presumption has caused. If
educational purposes are no longer
an automatic passport to charitable
status then private schools will have
to prove themselves to actually be in
the public benefit to retain charitable
status and the financial advantages
that this brings them. The fact that
they charge increasingly high fees
for their services and so definitely
do limit the extent to which those on
a low income can access them does
them no favours if they wish to
remain as charitable institutions.
Indeed, any charity that charges for

anticipations | spring 2007

encouraged to bridge the gap, argues Tamsin James
its services, whether it be to provide
medical care or theatrical performances, is going to have to prove that
it still deserves to be classed a charity.
There is a strong temptation for
progressives to set increasingly high
targets for private schools to achieve
to prove that they deserve charitable
status. They should have more bursaries available for poorer pupils,
they should make their facilities
available to state schools, they
should interact to a greater extent
with the wider community. With a
progressive agenda one cannot help
but acknowledge that income
should not act as a barrier to accessing the benefits of a charity, whatever the services that it provides. The
guidelines that those seeking charitable status will have to follow could
help us to open up institutions to a
much wider demographic. The
problems of social exclusion could
be tackled by all charities, whether
they be in education or health, the
arts or sports initiatives.
However, pragmatism should
temper our ideals. A recent letter to

The Times warned that asking too
much of private schools would lead
them to forgo charitable status altogether and to simply raise their fees
to make up any shortfall that the
end of charitable rebates would
mean for them. The so-called bas-

Just because we
believe the state has
a role to play should
not mean we are
hostile to any
initiative outside
government.
tions of privilege would close up
even more, which is surely not to
anybody's advantage.
We know that in the US, charitable
giving acts to make up a massive
shortfall in the basic provision of
state services. That is not a situation
that any Labour member could contemplate occurring in the UK with
equanimity. The party must be seen
to be supportive of charities. Just

because we believe that the state has
a role to play in people's lives, in
working towards a better and more
equal world where opportunities are
open to all, should not mean that we
are automatically hostile to any initiative from outside of government
that is also working towards a better
society.
We believe that the state should be
able to provide a first class education and expert health care. That no
one should go hungry or be without
a home. And our various policies
work towards that long term goal.
But while that is still only a dream it
should not hinder anyone's chances.
We can work to achieve as much as
we can for as many as possible, but
that should never lead to limiting
people's horizons. We want equality
of opportunity but that should never
mean looking for less than the very
best.
And if, for the moment, it turns
out that charitable institutions in
whatever form they take are the best
way to break the barriers of social
exclusion, we should not be afraid to
seize the opportunity.

7

anticipations | spring 2007

tough
on
crime?
Labour often claim credit for reducing crime, but could do more to prevent it,
Emma Carr is
editor of Anticipations

8

ew Labour is fond of taking the credit for the fall
in crime since 1997. The
British Crime Survey
reports that crimes experienced by
households have indeed fallen by
over a third.
It is debatable how much of that
fall is due to the Government. What
is true is the rate of the fall has
slowed recently to a virtual standstill. What should Government do
in future to ensure crime continues
to fall?
Now is a pertinent time to debate
this. Gordon Brown is about to
become Prime Minister yet he has
never made a single speech about
crime in ten years. Tony Blair was
certainly tough on crime, but he has
largely failed to be tough on the
causes of crime. Like many Labour
slogans, that one was written by Mr
Brown.
I will argue he has a prime oppor-

N

tunity to shift Labour thinking on
crime to prioritise preventing crime
over punishment.
Before setting out how, it is useful
to first show that punishment does
not work. Study after study shows
tougher sentences do not deter

The British Crime
Survey reports that
crimes experienced
by households have
indeed fallen by
over a third. It is
debatable how
much of that fall is
due to the
Government.
criminals. Common sense tells you
that simply increasing the length of

time you will spend behind bars
without actually increasing the likelihood you will get caught will do
little. Putting people in prison does
not reduce crime much either. Tony
Blair has presided over the greatest
ever rate of prison increase in British
history.
However, theory and evidence
show that once prison expansion
stabilses (which tighter budgets will
soon demand) the rate of offending
simply rises again. The statement
“if they are in prison they can’t
offend” is not true. Apart from the
huge rates of criminality in our
gaols, the vast majority of prisoners
will not spend a long enough time
in prison to curtail their criminal
career. Aside from locking people
up until they are too old to commit
crime, ever more people on the
inside will not solve our crime problem.
So how should Gordon cut crime?

anticipations | spring 2007

believes Emma Carr
What Labour needs to fully understand is that crime can be prevented.
Two approaches are needed. First,
there needs to be a significant shift
of mindsets and resources away
from a system that punishes and
protects to one that prevents and
enables. Second, there needs to be a
more directly managed effort to
reduce the opportunity to commit
crime–so called situational crime
prevention. I shall address each in
turn.
The adage that prevention is better than a cure holds true for crime.
The costs of crime in England and
Wales are phenomenal – in excess of
£36 billion per year (Home Office
figures, 2005). Violent and sexual
crimes are by far the most harmful,
particularly in terms of the emotional and physical costs they incur, as
well as the cost of the criminal justice system. Volume crime–theft,
burglary and criminal damage–may

get a lot of press attention, but only
account for around a quarter of
harm to individuals. Interventions
that could divert people away from
crime are therefore likely to be cost
effective.
Evidence shows that many people
who exhibit risk factors (a problem
or situation highly correlated with
later criminality) in their very early
years (0-2), such as weak parental
bonding and conduct disorder do
end up becoming the very people
who revolve in and out of the justice
system. However, it is also very
important to note that simply intervening in the early years will not be
enough. At various points in people’s development up to a half of
those displaying risk factors will be
“new”. Interventions need to occur
throughout a child’s development.
Do the requisite interventions
even exist? I would argue they do.
Evidence from other countries, particularly the US, show that intensive, tailored schemes applied at the
right time, do result in significant
impact later on in life. For example,
the Nurse Family Partnership is an
intensive two-year programme that
runs from pre-birth until the child is
two. At age twenty, an experimental
group had half as many convictions
as a control group. Critics point out
these are US based and cannot be
compared to Britain. Aside from the
fact our social pathologies are very
similar, pilot schemes being run in
England are already showing good
results.
As important as having a good set
of interventions for different needs
(such as anger, social skills, parenting skills etc) is having a universal
system of assessing risk. Attaching
this to current events where the
state assesses various features could
easily be done. All parents have a
nurse home visit, children are
assessed regularly during school:
entering the system, key stage tests,
moving to secondary school and so
on. All would be ideal points to add
a short social assessment.
Ideally this assessment of need
and tailored interventions should be
devolved to local authorities. Sure
Start children’s centres would be an
ideal vehicle to deliver programmes. Central Government
would provide advice and support
as well as rigorous evaluation of
schemes to ensure we know what
works.
Delivering this, however, will
require serious political commitment. Results from this approach
would take decades to be fully
realised. Costs will initially outweigh benefits. Reallocating funds
from our rapidly expanding prison
estate could be one way to kick-start
investment. Yet, politicians are usually of the belief the public favour
toughness and nothing shows that
better than longer and more sentences. We have a long way to go.

Second, Gordon Brown would be
wise to put some effort into preventing crimes by reducing opportunity.
Again, there is an ideological element to this.
People need to be convinced as I
am that opportunity is itself a driving force for crime. Crimes require
effort. At the margin, if the rewards
are reduced or the effort increased,
less crime will occur. These situational crime preventions are a
proven cost beneficial and pragmatic approach to crime reduction.
There are a number of ways they
can work: you can make it harder to
commit a crime (eg toughened
glass, locks and bolts); you can
reduce the rewards of a crime (ink
tags on clothes, removable car stereos); make the crime more risky
(CCTV, street lighting); remove
excuses (remind people what is

There needs to be a
shift of mindsets
away from a system
that punishes and
protects to one that
prevents and
enables, and there
needs to be a more
directly managed
effort to reduce the
opportunity to
commit crime
criminal, litter bins); and remove
provocations (separate opposing
football fans, taxi queue wardens).
In direct contradiction to critics of
this approach, they do not deny
crime cannot or should not be
solved by tackling its cause. It does
not seek to blame the victim by
shifting the onus to avoid the crime,
and data show it does not significantly divert crime to another time
or place. Indeed, there was often
found to be a diffusion of benefits.
One estate in Dudley given new
street lighting saw crime fall, as well
as surrounding areas that did not.
There are a number of ways the
use of situational crime prevention
could be enhanced. Government
could set up a unit to work with
businesses to design out crime in
their products (will the iPhone be
the next mugging crime wave?)
Government could provide information and much needed training
for local authorities and the police to
audit crime in their areas and implement the most appropriate solution.
Together, these two approaches of
assessing young people’s risk and
providing interventions, and situational measures, can ensure there is
a long-term sustained reduction in
crime as well as many other benefits
to society these policies would
bring.

9

Image: NASA

anticipations | spring 2007

identity
crisis?

By developing a story of Britishness, Labour can reinvigorate the
Britishness debate, and reclaim British identity as an electoral asset,
contends Sarah T’Rula
Sara T’Rula is
Membership Officer and
Social Secretary of the
Young Fabians

10

ver a year ago, I sat
down and wrote an
Anticipations article on
Britishness, following
the 2006 Fabian New Year’s
Conference of that name.
At the event, it was suggested
that we might have a British Day,
commemorating the 300 year
anniversary of the 1707 Act of

O

Union. Yet, as 1 May approaches,
some of the most prominent
Labour MPs in last year’s debate
are now conspicuous only by their
absence. Some might say this need
not be a problem, but this author
disagrees.
In my earlier article, I defended
John Denham’s notion of a “British
story” as a useful tool in a debate

which has found effete and
fatigued terms like “multiculturalism” moribund.
A “British story” was, I argued,
conceptually potent since it was
both neutral enough not to flippantly demarcate, thereby excluding groups we would want to
include in the process (e.g. Welsh,
or Scottish, but also ethnic minori-

anticipations | spring 2007
ties), and requiring an explicit
opening up of the debate to include
citizens who may not normally
engage in political discourse, thus
preventing the debate from remaining the sole preserve of politicians
and others whose careers create for
them a vested interest in the
debate.
But now it seems that both the
concept of a “British story” and its
creator have disappeared from the
Britishness debate.
Reflecting upon the course of
events since the New Year’s
Conference, some of my earlier
comments regarding the role of
politicians in crafting Britishness
are things that I, as a Labour Party
member, may well come to regret.
This article seeks to address two
issues: how the “British story” concept can lead to effective policy
making, while also providing a
strong framework for debate by a
public increasingly unsure how to
proceed within the boundaries of
political (and historical?) correctness; and how the concept can provide the Labour Party with an elec-

since they didn’t make sense to the
people living under them; locality
is a key component of English identity (which itself feeds into British
identity) and ignoring this led to
the proposal of ultimately unsuccessful policies.
The
Labour
Government’s
reforms in health and education
could equally falter over this point.
Additionally, the debate surrounding how these services should be
organised (e.g. which type of
schools are provided for by government) is predicated upon what conception of Britain we want to
realise in the future.
To engage in the debate without
considering what we want
Britishness to become would be to
neglect this fundamental observation.
The promotion of British identity
and, arguably, also English identity,
may also be a prerequisite of tackling racism; studies have shown
that white youths feel that they are
prevented from celebrating their
culture in the same way as is permitted for other groups in Britain

The “British story” could create a popular
relevance to the moves for constitutional
reform, since the political system by
which we are governed is an integral
component of identity, as research has
clearly demonstrated.
torally appropriate narrative which
can successfully confront the new
brand of one-nation conservatism
being espoused by Cameron’s
Conservatives, stemming it off
before it has the opportunity to
develop into anything serious or of
substance.
Regarding the first issue, the
“British story” could create a popular relevance to the moves for constitutional reform, since the political system by which we are governed is an integral component of
identity, as research has clearly
demonstrated.
It would provide a link between
what is often perceived to be a
remote debate concerning only
politicians whose working life
would be affected by reform, and
the public who will be most affected (albeit indirectly) by any further
reforms. In particular, the assumed
problem of asymmetry in the constitution could arguably be best
grasped through the prism of a
British story.
Furthermore, the concept, if
developed, could inform policy in
local government, health and education, as well as other areas. Nick
Pearce (ippr) is not the only one to
note that, for example, the history
of local government policy has
been littered with boundary
changes which were unsuccessful

and, further, that this is a social
basis of racist action.
It is important that politicians at
all levels, and voluntary organisations, involve themselves in this
area; the ippr’s focus group
research has shown that many people want to celebrate their identity
but that they do not know how,
with the result that many participants felt Christian holidays ought
to be given more importance,
despite the fact that they themselves were not religious and did
not attend church even on these
occasions.
Furthermore, the language used
in cohesion discourse, and in areas
such as immigration and asylum, is
as important as the policies which
arise from it.
Various studies have shown that
Euroscepticism is deeply influenced by the terms of the debate,
with individuals being likely to feel
more anti-Europe when Europe
and Britain were counter-posed
than when they were described as
being compatible.
The two identities were perceived as competing, not as potentially complimentary.
That the latter can obtain is illustrated by research which clearly
finds that ties to Europe are structurally similar to ties to the nation
and, with Britain as an anomaly,

the more strongly one identifies
with one’s nation, the more strongly one identifies with Europe.
Likewise at home, the perceived
(and in some cases real) neglect of
the white working class by the
Labour Party has created a space
for extreme parties such as the BNP
to claim identity for themselves.
We can either cede the national
ground to such organisations,
attempt to meet them on their own
terms, thus forsaking Labour Party
ideals, or provide an alternative
through conceptual devices like a
“British story.”
I am confident that we can dismiss the first two as viable options;
this entails actively immerging ourselves in the creation of identity.
The One-nation Tories of the
1960s were themselves, arguably,
derivative of Baldwin’s New
Conservatism (and the earlier
thoughts of Disraeli) which successfully employed the rhetoric of a
cultural England to gain support
from voters who were demographically expected to be part of
Labour’s main cleavage.
Cameron’s initiatives, both in
policy and in the rhetoric which
has formed so large a part of his
electoral strategy, have clearly
failed to live up to the standards set
by his predecessors, but acknowledging this is not incompatible
with recognising that the onenation strategy inhabits the same
policy and discourse space as the
recent Labour-initiated Britishness
debate.
That he is pursuing this agenda
is clear from his concept of “compassionate conservatism” and the
components of this concept: highlighting the importance of the family unit, school choice, and the
avoidance of harm, with an emphasis on the role of the individual in
creating a society that the state, it is
argued, cannot simply provide for
them.
Hence the slogan that the
Conservatives under Cameron are
not about rolling back the state, but
rather about rolling forward society. Were this strategy to become
effective, making inroads into the
working class cleavage that is the
foundation stone of Labour success, and particularly prominent in
the north, the consequences for our
party, and for the electorate, could
be a decade or more of
Conservative government.
The
rise
of
this
‘new’
Conservatism is not inevitable –
Labour has initiated the debate in
this area and, if we can continue to
push forward progressive and
innovative ideas, we will remain
dominant.
But how that can happen without
the input of Labour MPs who, once
outspoken on this very issue, have
now apparently moved on to other
concerns, is difficult to tell.

11

anticipations | spring 2007

the
grass
isn’t
always
greener

Green taxes are for government, not opposition, writes Andrew Hanson
Andrew Hanson is a
Young Fabian member

12

hen confronted with the
ability to make altruistic
choices with no regard
for immediate electoral
consequences, many Labour party
members might feel a tweak of conscience as they think of greener taxation and regulation; carbon emissions have risen 4.5% under Labour,
while the green tax take has fallen.
Yet properly presented and managed, green taxes can be good for
your economy and your party, as
well as saving the planet.
Take congestion charging. In
Stockholm, residents were given a
trial period to experience such a
scheme, including improved public
transport services, before having the
final say on whether they wanted it
in a referendum. They began to
realise the benefits of more buses,
lower congestion and pollution and
greater tourist appeal. This enabled
attitudes to change, leading to
approval of the scheme last autumn.
In Edinburgh, a less imaginative
approach with weaker communication led to scepticism and negativity
undermining any initial enthusiasm.
Trust, good communication and
showing people the tangible benefits
of green taxes are vital.
Building standards are another
area of debate. As Minister for
Communities
and
Local
Government, Ruth Kelly has recently called for all new homes to be zero
carbon developments within ten
years. This is to be applauded, but
the government should not be
sheepish about taking action now. In
the case of new homes built to

W

Ecohomes “Very Good” standard,
significant savings in energy and
water use quickly pay for the extra
construction cost of around 2%. The
government should be making this
standard mandatory now. Residents
see lower bills and affordable
warmth; what they don’t see is an
average 32% reduction in CO2 emissions.
This leads me on to the second
key point – where some of the benefits are not immediately obvious, like
the reduced contribution to climate
change, they need to be highlighted
by the government.
There are more votes than ever in
fighting climate change, particularly
if people are made to feel good about
their own emissions reductions. A
“star rating” system for new homes
should mention climate change as
well as running costs.
Thirdly, governments must treat
taxpayers with more respect. If one
of the purposes of a tax is to reduce
CO2 emissions, then the money
raised should be hypothecated to do
just that, partly by providing taxpayers with low carbon alternatives.
Gordon Brown has said that the
recent increases in Air Passenger
Duty will be used to improve public
transport. This hypothecation must
be made public and transparent. If
national road pricing goes ahead, the
same principle should apply. Voters
are far more likely to support new
taxes if they feel they are not simply
an extra levy by a greedy Treasury.
Green taxes will gain more credibility if they meet their goal; changing people’s behaviour. An extra £5

on a return flight won’t have any real
impact, according to the CAA; a £30
increase could reduce traffic on
short-haul leisure flights by as much
as two-thirds. It should be remembered wealthier people fly more
often: the CAA states that 55% of
cheap flight passengers have household incomes of more than £35,500.
Slight increases are not going to be
effective.
A recent study from Oxford
University’s
Centre
for
the
Environment has suggested that
modest price increases in the cost of
aviation and motoring will have less
effect than personal carbon quotas
and targeted campaigns. As David
Milliband put it recently whilst talking to the Guardian, personal carbon
quotas have a “simplicity and beauty that would reward carbon thrift”.
Significant direct tax increases and
quotas combined should have the
weight of impact needed.
Lastly, there is the issue of moral
leadership. The premise that you
can’t implement green taxes forgets
that in the medium term the public
rewards politicians who have the
courage to lead. Climate change will
be a catastrophe for the developing
world, the poorest suffering the most
even though they have not caused
the problem. From a more venal
point of view, the Stern Review tells
us that doing nothing will cost us at
least five times as much as actually
tackling climate change.
Greener taxation is a progressive
necessity, which if correctly
approached will keep a political
party in power, not sink it.

anticipations | spring 2007
n the build up to the 2007 New
Year conference, Fabian General
Secretary Sunder Katwala
declared that Gordon Brown
will need new ideas if he is to win
over the public - and in areas like foreign policy the need for change is
never more obvious.
Yet as the Chancellor spoke to the
conference, lamenting the failure to
win hearts and minds in the war on
terrorism, President Bush was escalating that failure by ordering more
than 21,000 extra troops to Iraq.
As Gordon Brown gets set to
enter Number 10 as Prime Minister,
with President Bush’s "last-chance"
presenting no workable plan, the
expense and tragedy of the war may
not even have peaked.
As leader, one of the primary
challenges Gordon Brown will have
to face is the perception of him as a
man who stood shoulder to shoulder
with Tony Blair in his support for the
Iraq war and he will have to take
action to restore faith among disillusioned Labour voters, who worry
about the prospect of future military
action.
There is no plan that can undo the
damage already done. But one of the
biggest military mistakes of the last
century demands a response.
The failure to adopt Clare Short’s
Armed
Forces
(Parliamentary
Approval for Participation in Armed
Conflict) Bill was a mistake – and
Gordon should reintroduce it. And
that lessons learnt by the military in
Iraq should be followed by changes
in the way we deploy our ‘hard’
power.
Whilst Clare Short’s Private
Members’ Bill could be interpreted
by some as her attempt to make
amends for her failure to resign over
the war. Since presenting it to
Parliament in 2005 she has hardly
spoken apart from to resign from the
Labour party.
After resigning from the
Government Clare was free to enter
the Bill ballot. The Bill would have
taken the power to declare war or
commit troops to military action
away for the Prime Minister and
given it to Parliament. It was drawn
up and proposed by the Public
Administration Select Committee.
But it hit the parliamentary
buffers in October of 2005. It was
talked out, and No. 10 said it would
have been impractical to implement.
The argument was made that there
had been a vote on Iraq – but the crucial difference was that the PM could
have overruled a “No” vote.
The argument was also made that
such a Bill would undermine the
morale of troops. However, as a parttime member of Her Majesty's forces
myself, I would welcome a debate
and vote in Parliament to help understand the legality and legitimacy of
my actions.
I was disappointed that the
Chancellor was unable to back the

I

on the
war path

Gordon Brown must make the declaration of
war a thing of the past, believes Dan Whittle
Bill at the time. If he is to resurrect it,
it should not be watered down. In
fact, he should look at a higher hurdle, perhaps that approval for war
should only be accepted with a
majority of both governing party and
official opposition voting ‘Aye’.
For people like me, who wish
they had done more to oppose the
war, or who agreed with the stated

intentions of the war (democracy and
development) but opposed the strategy; supporting a Bill to change the
Prime Minister's Royal prerogative
will be a way to make known our
intent that this should never happen
again.
For Gordon Brown, introducing it
will be his chance to show he feels the
same way.

Dan Whittle is Membership
Officer and Social
Secretary of the Young
Fabians

13

anticipations | spring 2007

city
confidential

INTERVIEW: Emma Carr talks spending, poverty and football with
Minister for the City and Financial Services and Economic Secretary to
the Treasury, Ed Balls
Ed Balls was elected MP
for Normanton in West
Yorkshire in 2005. He was
made Economic Secretary
to the Treasury.

14

Having just been led through the
warren of corridors and stairways
that is the Palace of Westminster, I
walk into Ed Balls’ office. He immediately excuses the office’s size;
roughly the size of a postage stamp think janitor’s cupboard with wall
paper. It’s ok though; some genius
has managed to fit in a desk and
chair, an arm chair, a sofa and a coffee
table – it’s a logistical miracle.
Laughing about his tiny office –
although I’m sure he must have one
of those huge ministerial offices in
the Treasury somewhere with big,
plush, red sofas, a giant desk and
walls covered in Government art –
Ed Balls introduces himself.
Once all the hand shaking is over
and we’ve sat down and I’ve refused
cups of tea and glasses of water, we
begin. First topic: spending; after all,
this is his area. I ask about future
spending commitments on health.
Centenarians are the biggest growing
age group in the UK and the PreBudget Report identified the changing demographic as one of the five
key policy challenges of the coming
decade. However, it then seemed
went on to basically ignore the future
health and social care budgets, and
there’s be little clarification since. So,
I ask, is this a sign that a Brown
Government will have a significantly
reduced emphasis on healthcare?
The answer; an emphatic and repeated ‘definitely not’, followed by a
trumpet ringing for the NHS and the
party that introduced it. The Labour

Government raised the National
Insurance rate by a penny in 2002 to
pay for the NHS up to 2008, he says,
“and our commitment to a public
NHS is absolute”.
“The establishment of the NHS by
the 1945 Government was one of
Labour’s great achievements in
Government and the challenge for
our generation is to make sure that
it’s renewed in the twenty-first century so that in 50 years’ time from
today, at the hundredth year anniversary of the NHS, people can still say
that the we in Britain are leading the
world by showing that you can have
a health service which is free for
everybody and which treats people
on the basis of their needs not their
ability to pay.”

The reality is that
there is a lot of
consistency
between what the
Tories talk today and
3 or 4 years ago..
But what about after 2008, when
the recent high level funding growth
for the NHS is due to stop? How will
the NHS cope then? And what kind
of post-2008 growth can healthcare
expect?
“We’ll have to wait for the spending review details,” he replies to my
last point in enigmatic fashion. Ed

then goes on to explain how the
Wanless Review, which reported in
2000, highlights a massive capacity
problem in the NHS in terms of doctors and nurses. Wanless also recommended increasing NHS funding.
“Over the last 30 years the money
going to the NHS had been low and
we needed a period of catch up.” Ed
explains, Wanless proposed that “for
the first five years you had a really
strong burst of spending. He then
proposed that after 2008 you slowed
down the rate of growth of spending.”
“We went to the very limit of what
we could do for the first five years.
The historic spending on the NHS
had been about 3% a year, in real
terms we’re doing about 7.5% a year,
10% in cash terms. The National
Health Service has had unprecedented amounts of money in these five
years. It’s for the spending review to
work out how much we can afford
after 2008, but we know in order to
keep going forwards in terms of NHS
improvements the money’s got to
keep flowing; there’s no point in us
having a five year burst of spending
and then going back to the bad old
days of cuts and under-funding.”
Moving on from healthcare to the
related issue of social care, I ask
about the reported under-funding of
social care. Is this something that we
can expect to be addressed in the
Comprehensive Spending Review
(CSR)?
“One of the interesting things in

anticipations | spring 2007
the Wanless work on the NHS was
that it pointed out the amount of
money which gets spent on your life
through NHS care tends to be concentrated in the first six months of
your life and in the last six months of
your life. But if you have an aging
population that postpones the point
at which that extra NHS spending
happens, so an aging population
doesn’t necessarily mean a lot more
spending for the NHS. What it does
mean is that people are living longer
in retirement and therefore potentially have greater needs in terms of
social care. And so there’s no doubt
that the social care burden on the tax
payer is going to grow in the coming
years and we need to think really
hard about how to address that.”
He goes on to explain that there
has been an increased focus on this
area within government and externally – The King’s Fund, the Joseph
Rowntree Foundation and the ippr,
to name but a few, have all produced
reports on social care funding.
“I’ve been working very closely
with Ivan Lewis [the Department of
Health’ Minister for social care]
because we need to make sure we
spend money in a way which is
affordable but also in a way which is
fair. One of the consequences of the
economy doing better in the last
years is that people are tending to
retire on higher incomes, more people are owning their homes, we need
to make sure that we fund social care
in a way which takes account of that
and adds up.”
Moving on to environmental policies, I ask what he thinks is the right
balance between cutting carbon and
ensuring that poorer people don’t
bear the brunt of the environmental
taxes?
“I think that the first thing to say,
and I said this in my next decade lecture for the Fabians, is that you can’t
try to tackle climate change simply
by national governments acting
alone. That the amount of emissions
that the UK as a country produces is
very small compared the overall
around the world. And you need an
international effort which involves
America, China, India, the big
European countries. Therefore international cooperation has got to be at
the centre of what you do. It would
be very easy for us to come along
with a whole series of individual
measures which would look like we
were acting and as you said could
quite easily have a big impact upon
not just the British population but
[more specifically] on people on
lower incomes in our population.
There’s no point doing that nationally unless you’ve got an international
agenda which is worked out. That’s
actually critical to all this.”
Ed’s reference to his Fabian Next
Decade lecture brings me nicely to
David Cameron’s policies, something he talked about in his speech
(the full speech can be downloaded

from the Fabian Society website at
www.fabian-society.org.uk).
“I’ve looked hard at what the
Tories are talking about today, what
they were talking about 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
years ago. The reality is that there is a
lot of consistency between what the
Conservatives talk today and 3 or 4
years ago. If anything, it seems to me
that they are becoming more right
wing rather than less right wing.
David Cameron as a party leader is
more anti-European and I think he’s
actually in his instinctive heart more
anti-State, more anti-Government,
more anti-collective. He wants to talk
about personal responsibility, personal freedom and charity. He doesn’t really see the importance of the
community acting together, the collective. The environment is just one
very good example where no indi-

vidual alone, no matter how much
they try to conserve energy or try to
change their lifestyle, can sort this
out; it’s got to be done not just across
individual countries, but [through]
cooperation. I see collaboration in
Europe as an essential first step
towards tackling climate change. I
think the Conservatives have got a
huge intellectual problem in that they
are anti-European just at the time
when climate change shows that proEuropeanism is the only way forward.”
Moving on, I ask about the concentration of the UK’s economy growth
in the south east of England. Ed
explains that his constituency was 20
years ago a coal mining community,
15 years ago had above average
unemployment and now has below
average unemployment. All areas of
the UK, he says, have benefited from
the economic strength and stability
that have been achieved by the
Labour Government.
“It’s true that the South East and

London have always been an important engine for our economy and I’m
the minister now for the City and
financial services. We’ve got an
important financial services industry
in Newcastle, in Birmingham, in
Edinburgh in particular, but also in
London. And London and the city
doing well - creating jobs, paying
taxes - helps the whole of the economy. So I don’t want to see London
and the South East held back. What I
do want is to keep things stable and
growing so that the whole country
can continue to share in the rise in
prosperity.”
One problem that the City plays in
a big part in sustaining is the gap
between the rich and the poor, which
has either remained the same or,
according to some figure, grown in
the past ten years. I ask if, as the
Minister for the City, he’s comfortable with these figures?
“I’m comfortable first of all with
the fact that we’ve been the most
redistributive Government
since the 1945 Government. And
that for the previous 18 to 20 years,
really since the late 1970s, inequality
in Britain and the gap between the
average income and the poorest had
been growing year by year and we
put a stop to that.”
The reasons for the halt in growth
of the poverty gap, he says, are
Labour introduced policies such as
working family tax credits, the
Minimum Wage and the policies
which have helped to reduce unemployment, especially among single
parents (a topic we pick up again
later in the discussion).
“But you’re right that in Britain
and all around the world there’s been
a trend to see the richest earning a lot
more than everybody else and I see
that in the City of London all the
time. This is an industry which is
global; people come and work in our
financial services industries from not
just America and France and
Germany but Spain and Italy and
South Africa and Australia, from
China, India, all around the world
and they come because this is the best
place to work. They also come
because the rewards are high. I think
if we started saying that we were
going to try and put some kind of cap
on what they could earn they’d just
be off taking the jobs and the taxes
they pay [to other countries]. So I’m
afraid it’s a reality of global life in this
kind of industry. That doesn’t mean I
like it. It doesn’t make me very comfortable but I think we would damage our ability to tackle poverty if we
were to drive those kind of people
and that kind of business to other
parts of the world.”
Returning to the question of welfare, I ask about the arguments that
targeted benefits undermine incentives and that universal benefits are
the way forward.
“If you look at our welfare reforms
in the early part of the Government

15

anticipations | spring 2007

we introduced a winter allowance for
all pensioners and then raised the
income for all pensioners above inflation. In the first budget we raised
child benefit for the first child quite
substantially. So there’s always been
a focus on raising universal benefits
for pensioners and for families. But at
the same time, we are Labour
Government, we want to pursue progressive goals and therefore we’ve
always said that we should try to do
more for those families that need it
most, those pensioners that need it
most. The phrase we used was progressive universalism, which means
that you support everybody but you
give extra support to people who
need it. So you can’t look at the pension credit in isolation, you’ve got to
look at the pension credit alongside
the basic pension. You can’t look at
the child tax credit in isolation,
you’ve got to look at the child tax
credit alongside child benefit.
If you put all of your focus onto
universal benefits, and you say we’re
going to give everyone the same
regardless of their need then you
either end up with a massive rise in
taxation so that you can help the
poorest and raise everybody up by
the same amount, or you’re going to
end up spending a lot of money on
people who don’t need so much
[while] leaving people who are
worse off on the lowest incomes. If
on the other hand, you go only for
targeted benefits and you withdraw
all from people when they reach a
certain income level, then you get
into problems with incentives. That’s
why I think any sensible policy is to
combine both, You need a universal
element, which is important in terms
of incentives but is also important in
terms of politics; I like the fact that all

16

families get child benefit, all pensioners get the basic pension, it makes
everybody part of the welfare state.
But I also think we’re a Labour government, we want to abolish poverty
for families and pensioners, we
should give more to people on the
lowest income. I was really proud of
the fact that the working families tax
credit has boosted take home pay of a
family on below average earnings by
around £3500 a year if they’ve got
two kids. We could never afford to do
that for everybody, we’ve done that
for families on lower incomes and
made a massive difference to their
lives.”
Moving on to some Labour Party
issues, I ask if the Government is performing well, with a good story to
tell, does it really matter if the Labour
Party membership in the country is
falling so rapidly?
“I think it does matter and that
we’re not going to win the next election without a strong membership
and activist base. The period when
our membership was at its highest
was when people saw that we had a
real election to fight in 1997 and that
by being a member of the party, by
campaigning and working for it and
helping to finance it you can make a
difference to getting rid of the Tories.
The last two elections I don’t think
there’s been the same sense that
there’s a fight on. There’s going to be
a fight at the next election; I think we
can win it, but we’re going to need all
our activists out there. So we need to
persuade more people to come and
join the Party because that’s the only
way to make sure that you keep having the Labour approach to public
services, to education, to the NHS, to
tackling poverty and to the economy.”
And how will the constituency
boundary changes affect Labour,
given the fight that’s expected anyway at the next General Election?
This is something which is affecting
Ed personally as his constituency
will not exist in its current form at the
next General Election.
“The boundary commission was
set up about 50 years ago and ever
since then there’s been a fine tradition of people in all parties who suddenly find they have difficulties with
their constituencies. John Smith, our
sadly missed Labour leader, himself
had problems with his constituency
boundaries because of the boundaries commission. So there’s a long
historic pedigree of people having
boundary problems. I’m not the first,
I won’t be the last; it’s politics and
you deal with. And that’s what I’m
trying to do. In terms of the wider
party, it’s going to reduce our majority at the next election on the basis of
if we had the same vote as the last
time round people are estimating
that it would reduce our number of
seat by 15 to 20. it means it’s going to
be tougher. I’m very supportive of
the independent boundary commis-

sion but I think we need to keep a
close eye on the way in which they
are operating, and we are doing so.
We need to make sure that it doesn’t
become a pattern. But it will mean
we’ll have to fight hard at the next
election.”
The Polls agree with Ed that the
next General Election will be a fight.
Polls are consistently showing that
Labour
are
trailing
behind
Cameron’s Conservatives. I ask Ed
what he think of this.
“I think at the moment these polls
are not telling us too much. I’m old
enough to remember what it was like
in the early mid-1980s when we used
to be buoyed up by polls that said the
Thatcher Government was unpopular and Labour was on the verge of a
great step forward. And that was
what the polls were telling us in ’85,
’86, ’87. Sadly it didn’t turn out to be
true at all.”
He goes onto say that the next
General Election will be won on the
basis of who understands the way
the world in changing and has the
policies to respond to those changes.
“I think David Cameron at the
moment is trying make people listen
to him because for years the
Conservatives haven’t been listened
to by the British people. He may be
opening people’s ears at the moment
but the question is then whether people like what he says. I think that the
Conservatives are still trying to come
to terms with the changing world.
They’ve nothing to say about how
they would address issues of childcare, public services, climate change,
security, terrorism, keeping the economy strong. I don’t think they’ve got
anything to say at all at the moment.”
Finally, I tell Ed Balls about the
theme for this issue – the policies that
Labour should introduce but hasn’t.
His reply sums up quite well the sentiment of his answers to the previous
questions.
Throughout the interview Ed Balls
has focussed on three main issues:
fairness, families and moving forward in response to a changing
world.
“I don’t what the Government
position is on this at the moment, but
my daughter is 7, she plays football
at school in a mixed team. And as I
understand it, once you get to about
11 or 12, suddenly there are quite
restrictive rules about mixed football
games. It seems to be completely
ridiculous, the idea that you discriminate against women who are good at
football simply to protect this male
bastion of prejudice seems. To me
that’s completely absurd.
“So I’m quite keen that my daughter keeps playing football until she’s
grown up and if she wants to play
girls’ football she can and if she
wants to play mixed football she
should be allowed to. I have a feeling
that’s totally contrary to Government
and FA policy but it seems to be to be
completely right.”

anticipations | spring 2007

trimming
the fat

Britain’s higher education system needs further reform,
argues Andrew Maloney
low, sluggish and expensive. No this is not a
review of an early people
carrier but rather a
description of our higher education system.
There are currently over two
million students working towards
qualifications that will, for the
majority, not be relevant to their
future employment. These students will leave their studies with
loans averaging around £27,000
and many will be unable to secure
the job they think they’re studying
for.
At the other end of the spectrum,
some degree programmes are soa
unpopular that the country is
starved of key professionals such
as engineers and teachers. For
some businesses the only way they
can operate is to actively seek a
workforce from overseas.
On top of this it is becoming
increasingly common for students
to endure years of extra study and
training to become ready for work
in the wider industry. Allow me to
give an example. Prospective
chemical engineers must first
study towards a Bachelors of
Engineering degree followed by a
Masters of Engineering degree.
They must then study to become
industrially recognised to practice
in the field. Only then can the student begin working towards a
Chartered Engineer qualification.
This system is long, tiresome and
largely unnecessary.
If the qualification was made
more specific to, in this example, a
particular type of engineering
process, the length of study could
be reduced dramatically. Although

S

this would produce a less transferable qualification, it would simply
be a case of returning to study for
maybe a year or two in order to
change career. This may seem to be
asking a lot of the family man or
woman who simply cannot afford
to be without income for even a
short while, but there are always
ways around these problems: perhaps a family maintenance loan of
some sort. But this is a different
issue. These proposals would in
turn create a culture of continuous
study and continuous development. This is a much more desirable mindset than the current attitude of attending university at a
young age and never even touching a textbook in later life.
What our current system needs
is a reform of the traditions of
study. With close discussion with
the major players of the British
industries we can create sets of
‘industry specific’ qualifications.
These degree courses of a shorter
length - perhaps only two years
once redundant modules have
been removed and the timetable of
study compressed - will create a
set of qualifications that can be
used directly in the work environment.
These qualifications would provide the essential knowledge
required to work in a particular
industry. Education can then be
furthered gradually through either
workplace training or external
education. Extra qualifications
would take the form of ‘top-up’
degree programmes that can be
studied as and when industrial
requirements change.
Essentially, this system would

give students the basic industrial
educational requirements needed
for a given workplace: a foundation upon which supplementary
‘career furthering’ education can
be built. This will allow our students to enter the workplace earlier than they otherwise would. This
could in theory reduce the average
student loan debt from £27,000 to
just £18,000. The average student
would leave their studies with
substantially less debt and a
greater chance of gaining employment in an appropriate field.
Furthermore, universities would
see an increase in applications to
these generally low-cost courses.
Arguably the greatest beneficiary
would be the British industry.
They would gain access to a workforce with skills specific to their
needs and with the ability to adapt
to changing requirements.
As always, education is a political hot potato. Although we must
bear in mind the cost of reform, we
must also focus on the long-term
cost endured from the lack of
reform. A simplified system would
give extra motivation to students
who may be daunted by the current higher education system. With
so much of our economy resting
upon professional services rather
than manufacturing, horizontal
increase in Britain’s academic
prowess should be targeted to give
a greater boost to the economy.
Like many great institutions, our
country has developed due to a
focus upon academia and ingenuity. Let us reform and live up to the
socialist principles we stand for:
chances for the many, not just for
the few.

Andrew Maloney is
a member of the
Young Fabians

17

anticipations | spring 2007

tale
away
Labour has lacked narrative in government, argues Mark Rusling
Mark Rusling is
Vice-Chair of the
Young Fabians

18

or a government dubbed the
‘sultans of spin’, New
Labour has been remarkably
coy about developing its
own overarching narrative to explain
the last 10 years.
To take the Dire Straits pun further
than it should possibly go, the Blair
years have been more ‘Money for
nothing’ than ‘Brothers in arms’.
Policies such as tax credits, which
have benefited those most in need,
have not been linked into an overall
theme which can explain why
Labour does what it does. They
should have been linked through the
narrative of equality of autonomy.
All governments bequeath a narrative to the political history books. The
narrative is either one of their own
making, or one (almost inevitably
more cruel than those that governments fashion themselves) that others have made for them. A glance
through the chapter headings of
Peter Hennessy’s study of the postWar Prime Ministers attests to that.
John Major is ‘The Solo-Coalitionist’,
whereas Margaret Thatcher is ‘A
Tigress Surrounded by Hamsters’.
Thatcher was successful in fixing a
narrative in the public mind (and
that of Peter Hennessy) of a self-help
government with the Iron Lady at its
head. John Major was markedly less
successful as his Cabinet could not
even decide on what that narrative
should be. Despite an opposition
even weaker than that faced by
Thatcher, and with an equally strong
conviction politician at its head,
Labour has been unable to fix a narrative in the public mind. Whether
through a lack of desire to develop
one, or through an inability to choose
one, New Labour has made the mis-

F

take of allowing others to decide the
government’s narrative for it. Do not
be surprised when that narrative is
not pretty.
The government should have chosen the theme of equality of autonomy to link its policies and explain
them to the public. The desire for
equality of autonomy is the desire for
every person to have the same degree
of control over the important decisions affecting their lives. This relates
to all aspects of public policy and
reflects the belief that people’s life
choices and life chances should not
be determined by factors beyond
their control.
This is not the same as a narrow
‘choice’ agenda – it is much more
fundamental than that. The choice
agenda argues that every person
should be able to choose which hospital they can attend for non-urgent
surgery. Equality of autonomy aims
to eradicate the inequalities, in
lifestyle and in provision of healthcare, which limit a person’s full control over the direction of their life.
Autonomy is concerned with all the
inequalities which impede a person’s
capacity to be truly in control of their
life. Choice merely refers to the act of
exercising that control, ignoring the
ways in which a person’s capacity to
exercise control might be negated.
Equality of autonomy is not individualistic. It recognises that those
with strong social bonds are best able
to maintain true control over their
lives – autonomy does not mean isolation. Those social ties may be provided by family, friends and voluntary organisations – the importance
of which has often been overlooked
by
the
left.
However,
the
Conservatives have traditionally

been – and continue to be – blind to
the role that the state can play in fostering these bonds.
David Cameron has sought to distance himself from Margaret
Thatcher by declaring that, “there is
such a thing as society. It’s just not the
same thing as the state”. He is not
wrong in saying this, but by failing to
mention the role that the state plays
as part of society, he omits the state’s
valuable role in securing people’s
control over their lives. The
Conservatives believe that autonomy
is provided through freedom from
the state. In this, they are wrong – the
state can be the vehicle through
which people can achieve autonomy.
Tony Blair has often talked about the
‘enabling state’ in the context of
increasing people’s capacity to take
individualised decisions – the choice
agenda. Labour should instead have
embraced the concept of the
‘enabling state’ as a means of removing those inequalities which impact
on people’s ability to truly exercise
control over their lives – equality of
autonomy.
This narrative could have been
very powerful, if expressed in language that sounds less like it has
jumped straight out of a sociology
textbook. Tony Blair has been correct
in identifying that people are now
more likely to want a personalised
public service than they were twenty
years ago. However, his government
has been wrong in translating that
insight exclusively into the choice
agenda, focusing on the need to give
middle class people sufficient
options in public services so that they
don’t all leave to go private. Of
course, generous public services are
not viable if they lose the support of

anticipations | spring 2007

the people who pay most taxes to
provide them. However, the desire
for better, more personalised, public
services is not confined to the middle
class and represents a general desire
among all people for control over the
decisions that affect our lives.
The choice agenda is fine for people who already have that control;
giving people true autonomy
requires addressing much more fundamental inequalities. A narrative
that tapped into the general desire for
control over our lives – while still
acknowledging and addressing the
inequalities which impede that control – would have been compelling
for all members of Labour’s 1997
coalition.
That narrative would have enabled
Labour to explain the rationale
behind many of its policies better
than it has in fact done. University
tuition fees should have been
explained exclusively on the basis of
increasing the number of young people from all backgrounds who can
attend higher education. The better a
person’s education, the more options
they have in life and the more able
they are to take advantage of them –
the essence of autonomy. Fees
increase the number of places for
those who wouldn’t have gone to
university without those places, and
improve the standard of teaching for
those who would have gone anyway.
Undoubtedly a massive over-simplification, but such a narrative would
have addressed themes of providing
a personalised high-quality education, along with issues of inequality
and autonomy.
Autonomy is not just a convenient
label to place on the government’s
actions – it should guide those
actions. Adopting the ideal of equality of autonomy would have pushed

Labour to introduce alternative policies regarding social housing and
childcare. Policy regarding both
issues appears to have been constrained by perceived political realities. The government has pledged to
establish Sure Start children’s centres
in 30% of the most disadvantaged
areas in England by 2008. This is, of
course, welcome – a fine example of
the enabling state in action. However,
the timidity of this aim, and the
absence of Labour’s much-vaunted
spin regarding Sure Start’s achievements to date suggest that the gov-

Narrative would
have enabled
Labour to explain its
policies better than it
has done.
ernment is not certain whether this
type of interventionist policy is a
vote-winner. Concerns about cost,
and about allegations of ‘nanny-statism’, appear to have trumped the
extension of an innovative policy
which contributes to the empowerment of those who currently have little control over their lives.
Labour’s housing policy appears
to have been determined by a desire
to move further away from the traditional model of local authority-provided council housing. Policy has
been skewed towards extending
home ownership at the expense of
increasing the stock of decent social
housing to serve those for whom
ownership is not an option. Again,
Labour has set an admirable target –
ensuring that all social housing meets
a decency threshold by 2010.
However, again, the target has been
marred by a requirement that no

local authority needing government
funding may retain ownership and
control of their housing stock.
This has reduced the control that
social tenants have over their property (Ruth Kelly has admitted that
there are currently few tenant-run
housing associations). It has also
shifted the focus of housing policy
away from investment in more social
housing in areas where demand
greatly outstrips supply, particularly
in London and the South East. The
investments in improving the quality
of existing social housing have been
impressive. However, the failure to
alleviate the backlog of those requiring social housing has led to feelings
of disempowerment among some of
the most vulnerable people in society,
who do not perceive that they are
able to influence the housing decision-making process. Addressing the
many inequalities in housing provision is a key aspect of securing equality of autonomy and, despite some
successes, the government has failed
to do this.
Thus, the government has been
guilty of not fashioning its own narrative. It should have chosen the pursuit of equality of autonomy, which
would have been popular with all
strands of Labour’s election-winning
coalition. This narrative would have
helped the government to explain its
policies more coherently. It would
also have prompted it to focus on
developing social housing and
extending Sure Start – two policies
which Labour has shied from for
dubious political reasons. All too
often, Labour’s lack of an overarching narrative has left voters thinking
(in the words of Dire Straits) “Where
do you think you’re going?” Equality
of autonomy would have provided
the answer.

19

anticipations | spring 2007

president of
the french?

The French Presidential election campaign has mirrored the ambuigity
of the role, believes Alexander Barker
Alexander Barker is
a member of the
Young Fabians and
is currently studying in
France

20

uch is the anxiety about
Presidential legitimacy, following the social crises of
Chirac’s last five years and
France’s current economic troubles,
that centrist candidate Bayrou, currently third in the polls, is proposing
to replace the Fifth Republic with a
sixth.
Since 1962, the French President
has been elected through direct universal suffrage, bypassing the politicking of Parliament or electoral colleges to establish an unmediated link
which presents him as the legitimate
embodiment of the will of the French
people.
However
since
François
Mitterand’s popularity started sliding in the early 1990s, and especially
since the Le Pen-Chirac duel of the
last elections failed to offer most of
the electorate a genuine choice, there
have been doubts over the truth of
this conception.
On the 11th February, Ségolène
Royal unveiled her “pacte présidentiel” to a crowd of 15,000 supporters.
Dressed in red, the Parti Socialiste
(PS) candidate moved her campaign
into the next gear, ending what she
called the “phase d’écoute” (listening
phase).
For almost three months following
her nomination as candidate,
Ségolène had invited the nation to
debate. Over 6,000 “participative

S

debates”, dubbed “cafés Ségolène”,
were held by PS activists around the
country, allowing les vraies gens –
real people¬ – to contribute to the
preparation of Royal’s platform.
The “pépites” (nuggets) of the
cafés Ségolène and over a hundred
thousand online contributions were
collected and synthesised in a book
called Cahier d’espérances. This literally means the notebook of hopes,
but also evokes the cahiers de
doléances (notebooks of grievances)
filled by the French subjects during
the Ancien Régime, and especially at
the moment of the 1789 Revolution.
Cahier d’espérances served as the
inspiration for the candidate’s impassioned two-hour speech on the 11th
February, in which the Presidentiable
enumerated France’s ills before
revealing her 100-proposal pacte.
Through this three-month exercise in
participatory democracy, Ségolène
hopes she has achieved a foundation
of legitimacy.
The anxiety concerning presidential legitimacy is evident in the prevalence in the political conversation of
the terms “pacte” (pact) and “contrat” (contract). The trend started
with environmentalist Nicolas Hulot,
who challenged the presidential
hopefuls to sign his “Pacte
écologique”, a list of environmental
pledges, and promptly obtained the
signatures of all the mainstream can-

didates. Ségolène named her 100 proposals her “pacte présidentiel”,
describing it as a “contract with the
French” before finding that Sarkozy
had simultaneously put forward a
rival “pacte républicain”. AC-Le Feu,
an organisation active during the
2005 banlieue riots, has just recently
produced a “social and citizen contract”; a list of housing, employment,
and anti-discrimination pledges for
candidates to sign. With news just in
that the CNOSF – the French
National Olympic and Sports
Committee – is announcing plans to
produce its own pacte, one wonders
why the candidates bother with manifestos at all. Yet this is all quite
unsurprising; this proliferation of
contracts is merely the concept of
unmediated legitimacy taken to its
logical extreme.
The trouble is that the Gaullist conception of the office of French
President is ambiguous. The directness of the election seems to ensure
the proximity of the office-holder to
the needs of his or her citizens, but
the office is supposed to be almost
monarchical – the President is above
politics. In other words, the link
between the French President and
the French People is at once the most
direct and the most distant in national politics. The style of the campaigns
betrays confusion over what position
is being fought over. Is it President of

anticipations | spring 2007

or president of
france?
the French, who intuits the citizen’s
needs, or President of France, the
statesman who draws up the great
principles of the society?
The “participatory democracy”
crystalised in Cahier d’espérance
clearly flows from the conception of
the role of President as intuiting citizen’s needs. Indeed, this conception
runs through Royal’s rhetoric and
practice.
In presenting her pacte, Royal proclaimed “I want to achieve for each
young person what I want as a mother for my own children”, an attempt
to exploit her own femininity to portray herself as naturally better-suited
to understand the French, their problems and their needs.
Her use of the internet, where
Ségolène’s supporters have been
extremely active, is a further example. Tangible display of Royal’s
promise that “with me, politics will
never again be done without you,”
the ségosphère – the name given to
the vast network of blogs supporting
her – played an important part in her
campaign before nomination, allowing her to bypass the party machine
against which she was competing.
She clearly hopes that her long
consultation of the peuple will similarly make her the natural President
of the French, giving her the edge
against Nicolas Sarkozy at national
level.
While the Sarkozists have also
embraced the internet as a way to
reach groups inaccessible by other

means, their candidate is seemingly
attempting to cross the party divide
at the level of grand principles. As he
put it to television viewers on the 5th
February, “I want to be the President
of political openness”.
His campaign is one which already
sees the role of President as above the
fray of petty parliamentary divisions.
Such unlikely figures as pre-First
World War pacifist Jean Jaurès and
1930s Popular Front leader Léon
Blum have found their ways into his
speeches in his bid to “explode the
left-right cleavage”.
But the statesman view of the office

At the heart of this
election if the
historical ambiguity
in the role and
legitimacy of French
President.
is not exclusive to the Sarkozy camp.
Perhaps its most telling effect is the
argument wielded by both camps
against demands for “chiffrage” –
making public the budgeting of their
proposals. Although Royal has costed her programme at €35 thousand
million, and Sarkozy his at €30 thousand million, the calculations remain
a mystery.
The argument is often made that to
ask for a budget is to misunderstand
the nature of the President’s role.

Although Eric Besson, the PS national secretary for economics, resigned
in frustration, spokesmen simply
reply that presidential programmes
deal with principles, not details such
as costs. As his replacement, Didier
Migaud, exclaimed, “we’re in a presidential campagne, not a budgetary
debate!”. This way of thinking surely
contributed to the situation in the
first years of Chirac’s Presidency ten
years ago, where he tried to fulfil his
campaign pledges of both reducing
high unemployment and resolving
national debt.
The crisis of national debt was an
issue Ségolène chose to highlight in
her speech on the 11th February, and
which both sides pledge to deal with.
Yet while both refuse to enter what
Ségolène calls “logique de guichet”
(ticket-office logic), there is little hope
of achieving more than Chirac on this
question.
Although such vestiges of the
statesman view conveniently remain,
it is the other role – that of being close
to the people – which is defining this
election.
Candidates from major and minor
parties are warming to the idea of
“real people”, and welcome the innovation – for France – of a television
programme where candidates are
asked unanticipated questions by a
panel of citizens.
The campaigns in general have
been criticised for concentrating on
domestic issues rather than worrying
about prestige in international affairs.
But if the President is to be close to
the citizens, he or she must share
their concerns, and his or her proposals will be concrete and detailed.
As Ségolène found during her
three-month search for a programme,
the French are currently concerned
about education and employment. It
is therefore neither a surprise, nor a
shame, that she proclaimed passionately “Avec moi, l'Education, encore
l'Education, toujours l'Education, elle
sera au cour de tout et en avant de
tout“ (“with me, education, more
education, always education, will be
at the heart of everything and come
before everything”).
At the heart of this election is the
historical ambiguity in the role and
legitimacy of French President. It is
unclear whether he or she should be
down-to-earth, embodying the
French population, or whether he or
she should hold him-or-herself aloof,
and make international affairs his or
her preserve.
This election, proceeding as it is
through participatory debates, and
focused as it is on domestic affairs,
seems at first to be confined to the
first category.
However, if a President is to come
down to the people’s level, and deal
with their day-to-day problems, he or
she cannot cling to the idea, legacy of
the second view, that such things as
budgets are too vulgar for his or her
consideration.

21

anticipations | spring 2007

Both the Tories and Labour have forgotten that the Conservatives are
entirely capable of change, argues Edward Robinson
Edward Robinson is a
Young Fabian member

22

any articles in this journal
begin with lines similar to
the following: ‘British politics is on the threshold of
a sea-change’, or, the ‘political landscape in Britain is entering previously uncharted waters’. What is interesting is that neither of these analogies is true.
It is, of course, true that we are
experiencing one objective first; the
re-election of the Labour Party in
government. It could be argued,
however, although not my me, that
this political fact belies the perennially static nature of British politics. We
may have seen the re-election of a
Labour government, twice indeed,
but in New Labour we have not witnessed the re-election of a radical
government. It is possible that the
last sea-change in British politics
occurred with the election and reelection
of
Mrs
Thatcher’s
Conservative Government. Few in
fact would disagree with this; I do.
The British Conservative Party is,
perhaps, a unique entity in politics
and it is with due caution that I
attempt this brief extrapolation.
Supporters of the Labour Party, or
indeed,
opponents
of
the
Conservative/Tory Party should not
forget the record of that Party (the
Tory Party) in government. In short,
the Conservatives have an astoundingly successful electoral record,
even if we forget the years before
universal suffrage.
How is this so? Psephologists in
Britain usually agree that if people
voted as they are often, or traditionally, believed to vote (i.e. along personal or class interests) the 20th century Conservative Party should
never have won a general election.
How has the Party been so successful at the ballot box? I think the
answer lies in the mentality of the
people who join the Party and, more
importantly, those whose rise up its
ranks to hold positions of office.
Why do people join the

M

Conservative Party? Two reasons I
suppose – one good, one bad –
power, and a desire to serve. The
basic assumption of this article is
that there is, more often than not, a
combination of both these reasons in
the signature on the back of the blue
card.
I can hear the cries – straw man!
Could anyone be so daft as to think
that this hasn’t been just as true on
both sides of the divide down the
decades? Well, the obvious examples
to the contrary and Hammer
Shawcross
notwithstanding,
I
believe that the ‘great’ change in contemporary politics came not necessarily with Mrs Thatcher but with
Tony Blair and with New Labour.
Politicians at the top of today’s
Labour Party exhibit, now perhaps
more so than those in the opposition,
all the signs of those who wish to
serve their country but also of those
whose desire for power is
entrenched. Labour politicians are
just as naturally presumptive and
ambitious as those in the
Conservative Party; ambition has
trumped principle in Britain’s largest
party of opposition; that there is now

Politicians at the top
of today’s Labour
Party exhibit all the
signs of those
whose desire for
power is entrenched
a New Labour ‘establishment’ is testament alone.
What supporters of both major
parties have forgotten is that the
Conservative Party is more than
capable of change. It is in the bloodstream of Conservative politicians
that change is necessary and that
change is the very lifeblood of their
party; theirs the pragmatic party, the
party of scepticism and of patriot-

ism.
It was a Tory who repealed the
Corn Laws, a Tory who took Britain
to war with Germany, a Tory who
took Britain into Europe, and a Tory
who broke the Unions and took on
the Church of England, the House of
Lords and the City. None of the
aforementioned acts are in the slightest bit traditionally conservative
and, thus, David Cameron’s call for
further NHS investment and a serious and sweeping legislative agenda
on green taxes is by no means inconsistent with Tory ‘principles’ but
rather a long awaited return to electoral pragmatism from one of
Western democracy’s most successful political parties. The repeal of the
Corn Laws could have destabilised
the British landed gentry, Ted
Heath’s decision to take Britain into
the EC surrendered parliamentary
sovereignty and was seen by many
as unpatriotic; the less said about the
New Right to many traditional
(social) conservatives the better. For
the Conservative Party to continue
touting the lines of Hague, Duncan
Smith and Howard would be anathema to British Toryism.
What does this teach us? The most
successful Conservative politicians
have always been those who have
been willing to embrace change
when it has been necessary for victory. Alec Douglas-Home, arguably
Ted Heath and certainly John Major
count as Conservative Prime
Ministers who failed, rightly or
wrongly, to modernise their party in
line with the popular spirit. Both
Douglas-Home and Heath were up
against Labour’s electoral maestro,
Harold Wilson, and a cabinet of
Labour ministers and shadow ministers counting among it the very best
of post-war political thinkers – Roy
Jenkins, Tony Crosland, Denis Healy
and Tony Benn to name a few.
It took an international currency
crisis, militant industrial action at
home and a very cold winter to final-

anticipations | spring 2007

change to
win?
ly topple Jim Callahan’s government
and usher in the modernised
Conservative Party under the leadership of a woman and completely
unrecognisable from the tripartite
corporatism of the post-war consensus years. Keynesianism was killed,
nay murdered; it has never been
resuscitated.
Moreover, given the state of the
British economy in 1979, it was necessary for electoral victory that the
Conservative opposition offered the
country a fundamental change in
economic outlook. That that attitude
turned out to be the manifestation of
previously marginalised, largely
intellectually based theories of the
New Right was unknown at the
time, not least I think by Mrs
Thatcher herself.
In the late 1970s it was not the
Conservative Party itself that fundamentally changed. The sea change
that Callahan spoke of was indeed a
sea change in terms of government
economic policy but it certainly wasn’t one in terms of party politics.
Similar paradigm shifts took place in
Disraeli’s Tory Party over a hundred
years ago as a means to combat
Gladstone, albeit in reverse. This the
same Disraeli who had spent a large
part of his early career fighting
Liberals like Cobbden and Blight
and seriously falling out with Robert
Peel.
Those who argue, therefore, that
we are, today, experiencing a first in
British politics, namely that the
Conservative Party has seen itself
need to adopt a much more socially
progressive rhetoric to stand a
chance at the polls, do so with a
short-sightedness perhaps afforded
by a rose tinted view of the successes
of the New Labour Government.
The Tory Party of the past would
always move to where the votes
were or where they were perceived
to be. Upon taking office in 1997
Labour had a duty; to shift the
‘establishment’ as far to the progressive left as it could; it has had only
marginal success in achieving this,
partly as Labour now appears to

many electors to outflank the opposition on the right on many issues
(e.g. ID cards, detainment of terror
suspects and student fees).
Why is it so that Labour has only
succeeded in shifting the ground so
far and is now so unpopular with a
liberal majority that the opposition
now sees a chance to undercut it on
social inclusiveness and environmental issues? The answer is in the
nature of Labour politicians. The real
sea-change came in 1994 when Tony
Blair was elected Labour leader at
the same time as a very different
generation of Labour politicians was
coming of age. These politicians
were, and are, intent on power.
People say that media channels

What New Labour
sympathisers are
wrong to do is
appease caution too
readily.
control access to the political debate
and, thus, to the actors who achieve
prominence by it. This is true but it is
only true insofar as politicians allow
themselves to be acted upon by this
invisible hand. Tory politicians have
always been guided by the hand of
the establishment.
It hasn’t always been the print
media monopolies or, specifically,
the Daily Mail and the Sun newspapers, but was once the landed agrarian class and the aristocracy, then the
urban capitalist middle class, then
the trade unions and captains of
industry, and now the media elites.
Labour and the Liberals/Whigs,
however, being traditionally made of
up of dissenters have, until New
Labour, been a lot less susceptible to
bow to established pressure. Why?
Because these groups of people had
very little to lose; they never
believed they would achieve public
office and they always placed their
conception of the public good over
their personal ambitions; this has
nothing to do with idealism or any

other sort of dogmatic unreasonableness, it is simply down to a major
difference in character and, often,
background. The Labour Party has
always been a party without a single
ideology; New Labour is nothing
new in this sense.
With this in mind there will
always be voices on the left that
argue Labour has trodden a necessarily cautious path since 1997 and
that it is still more important to
achieve small and obtainable targets
than to fail in implementing sweeping reforms. Had this sentiment been
prevalent at the time of the People’s
budget or at the publication of the
Beverage Report or indeed in the
Liberal Party of Gladstone the
Conservatives would never have
repealed the Corn Laws, never had
preserved health and safety in factories and certainly never have left a
National Health Service in tact even
during times of its most comprehensive tax cutting.
There is an oft repeated sentiment
among progressives that One Nation
Conservatism is something that Tory
politicians resort to when they want
to win votes. This is probably true
but it is also true in the case of
Thatcherism – just as much a vote
winning formula in the inflation ridden late 1970s.
What New Labour sympathisers
are wrong to do is appease caution
too readily, they mustn’t forget that
Labour is now serving not its first
but its third term in office. If Labour
is to succeed in ‘renewing’ itself in
power over the coming years it will
need to remember why its members
joined it. For all the warm hearted
sentiments of those who remember
the hardship of the Tory years there
belies the silent apathy of the ASBO
ridden delinquent, the alienated ethnic minority and the indebted student, nurse and teacher.
If Labour cannot return its voice to
prominence there will be two conservative parties fighting the next general election and not two progressive
ones and I think we all know who
plays best at that game.

23

anticipations | spring 2007

independence
day?
On the eve of elections to Holyrood, Scottish Labour stand in stark
contrast to the SNP’s inconsistency, writes Joe Fagan
Joe Fagan is a
Scottish Young Fabian
member

24

s the Holyrood elections
draw near, the SNP campaign is being built
around the notion that
they can be all things to all people.
For every pre-election promise to
increase spending there is another
to slash taxes.
Their jumbled mess of pre-election bribes would put a £5 billion
black hole in the budget of the
devolved government and that is
before taking into account their
plans for independence and further
extravagant spending commitments
which remain uncosted.
If the SNP are to be a credible
alternative then they must do more
than recycle mantra about breaking
up Britain but commit to a roadmap
for achieving independence, deciding on a direction rather than pretending they can have it both ways.
The killer question which the
SNP cannot convincingly answer is
rather simple; left or right?
Going left and imitating
Norway, for instance, depends on
black gold yet tax receipts from oil
are shrinking. Production in the
North Sea peaked in 1999 and output has declined ever since. Indeed,
oil revenues barely plug half the
structural deficit Scotland would
acquire upon achieving independence let alone sustain a separate
Scottish state.
Only the Tartan Tories on the
right of the SNP have acknowledged one essential truth about
their party’s core policy. Scottish
independence can only be achieved
with a seismic shift to the right.

A

Mike Russell, a prominent SNP
candidate, admitted as much in
spelling out plans for a flat tax and
downsizing
the
public
sector…before he was gagged by
Alex Salmond!
Behind superficial pledges to
meet the cost of PFI with the public
purse and turn student loans into
grants, even Alex Salmond demonstrates certain sympathies with the
New Right. The Nationalist pledge
to reduce corporation tax by a third
to mimic Ireland’s Celtic Tiger economy is one of Salmond’s personal
mistakes.

The killer question
which the SNP
cannot convincingly
answer is rather
simple; left or right?
As a direct consequence of
reducing corporation tax, Irish taxation was more regressive in the late
1990s than in the 1980s. A substantial tax burden shifted from corporate profits to labour; disincentivising work and fuelling fears of jobless growth and rising inequality.
Growing the labour market is a
necessity for Scotland given the
aging profile of the working population. Bringing the long-term
unemployed back into work and
putting an end to youth unemployment are challenges which Labour
is rising to as a matter of principle.
Revisiting Reagonomics would
push full employment out of reach.

If Scotland is to compete for
inward investment and attract
major employers then we must do
so through generating a rich pool of
talent rather than giving up on the
union dividend which allows us to
do just that. Divorcing Scotland
from the UK would be to break up
the marriage of market economics
and social justice north of the border.
Labour has delivered and will
continue to explore flexible working
hours, allowing parents with childcare responsibilities the opportunity
to return to the workplace or
acquire new skills.
Labour has pledged to create
academies offering a skills-based
education for young people.
Labour has introduced the Fresh
Talent Initiative for Scottish-domiciled international students.
Labour will create a Full
Employment Agency.
Labour has promised a new
Education Bill within the first hundred days of the new Parliament.
Salmond promised a referendum on
independence, then simply committed to calling one, then obfuscated,
then promised a White Paper.
The upcoming elections will be
the most challenging for Scottish
Labour since the inception of devolution but a promising campaign on
the three ‘E’s – economics, employment and education – will stand in
contrast to SNP inconsistency.
The Labour agenda for Scotland
in 2007 and beyond is ambitious,
robust and thoroughly progressive
in the Fabian tradition.

anticipations | spring 2007

young fabian executive
co-optees 2007
Kris Brown
Schools Officer
As Schools Project Officer I will manage and develop the project. I want the Young Fabians to
work with schools in the most deprived communities but not just London. I intend to broaden
the project out to cities like Birmingham, Manchester and Newcastle.
kbrown@youngfabians.org.uk

The Young Fabian
Executive Committee
co-opt five people each
year

David Chaplin
External Affairs
As External Affairs Officer I will be developing partnership opportunities for the Young Fabians
to enable future seminars, receptions and projects for the Young Fabian members. I will also be
developing and managing the Young Fabian Alumni Programme which will launch with an
alumni dinner later in the year. dchaplin@youngfabians.org.uk

Tom Miller
Regions Officer
In my role as regions officer I will help members to start their own regional groups and arrange
events for their members. I will develop the relationship between the Young Fabians and the
universities as well as with other regional Labour groups.
tmiller@youngfabains.org.uk

Sara Tâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Rula
Membership Officer and Social Secretary
As Membership Officer and Social Secretary I will work with Dan Whittle to encourage more
young people to become members and to get involved with the society. We will organise social
events that encourage members to meet each other and the meet the executive and to get more
actively involved. strula@youngfabians.org.uk

Dan Whittle
Membership Officer and Social Secretary
I will be working with Sara Tâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Rula as Membership Officer and Social Secretary. The under-31s
are the fastest growing section of the Fabian Society and we plan to further develop on this,
offering our members more opportunities to be active in the society and to meet other Young
Fabians. dwhittle@youngfabians.org.uk

Event in the North West: Celebrating International Women's Day at the Working Class Movement Library
The Working Class Movement Library, 51 The Crescent, Salford
Speakers: Nes Brierley (active in direct action and environmental campaigns), Bernadette Hyland (active in Irish community campaigns) and Imra Shoaib (President of Oldham Trades Union Council)

13

Renewal in Government: Mission Impossible?
Committee Room 6, House of Commons
Speakers: Harriet Harman MP, Stephen Twigg, Professor Philip Cowley, University of Nottingham and creator of
www.revolts.co.uk
Details: This seminar explored what renewal of the Labour Party really means - changes in policies, personalities or
both? Or is there a 'time limit' on governing which makes both irrelevant? Is it inevitable that Labour’s majority will
be eroded at the next election or can Labour succeed where other Governments have failed, and renew from a position
of power?

15

Young Fabian ‘New Members’ Event – including entertainment from the socialist magician
The Old Star pub, 66 Broadway, London, SW1H 0DB
Details: Old, new and prospective members joined us at the Old Star in Westminster at our annual New Members
event, which this year featured entertainment from a socialist magician. As always this event was a great way to
socialise, network and learn more about the Young Fabians and find out how to get more involved.

april
3
18
25
may
17
30
july
6
august

Theatre trip: Heartbreak House - a play by George Bernard Shaw, one of the founding figures of the Fabians
Watford Palace Theatre
Details: George Bernard Shaw's classic English comedy Heartbreak House is a funny, satirical and almost tragic look
at love, marriage and fidelity.
'Security and the Environment' - Lecture by Rt Hon John Reid MP, Home Secretary
Clifford Chance, 10 Upper Bank Street, London E14 5JJ
Details: With the reorganisation of the Home Office due in May, the focus of the Home Office is evolving. As this takes
place, Home Secretary John Reid set out his view on how at the heart of international security concerns, there frequently lies a battle over natural resources - the Arab-Israeli conflict and water supply in the region being a key instance. He
spoke on how the environment interacts with security issues at a domestic level.
Lecture by Rt Hon Peter Hain MP, Secretary of State for Wales and Northern Ireland on “The State of the Union”
Thatcher Room, Portcullis House, Westminster

Theatre trip: Whipping it up
New Ambassadors Theatre, WC2H 9ND
Details: Fully booked
The Future of Europe
Wednesday 30 May; Italian Embassy, 14 Three Kings Yard, W1K 4EH
For further information email Tom Flynn on tflynn@youngfabians.org.uk
Young Fabian Boat Party
The Young Fabian Boat Party 2007 will be taking place onboard the Miyuki Maru from 7.00 - 11.30 departing from
Westminster Pier. Three's a Crowd are booked to play and tickets in advance are priced at £15 for members £20 for
non-members with a free glass of bubbly on arrival.
To reserve your ticket please e-mail boatparty@youngfabians.org.uk and if you have any more questions please visit
our website where you can find full details. Cheques are to be sent to the Young Fabians at the Fabian Society (11
Datmouth Street, London, SW1H 9BN). Please note that no place is guaranteed until we receive payment.
Young Fabian Trip to Edinburgh Festival
The annual Young Fabian trip to Edinburgh for the festival will once again be scheduled to coincide with not only
the Fringe, Book and International Festivals but also with the Holyrood Festival of Politics at the Scottish Parliament.
And again this year we are hoping to put on an event at the political festival. The cost of the trip will include accommodation in the university halls of residence from Thursday to Monday and tickets to events at the Fringe Festival,
the Book Festival and the Political Festival.
The trip will cost around £115 and you just make your own way to Edinburgh. We recommend you book early to
avoid disappointment. For further information, please email Emma Carr at ecarr@youngfabians.org.uk.

26

in the next anticipations

LEADERSHIP
SPECIAL
the
man
who
would
be
king?

who should lead the party into the next general election?
who should be their deputy?
in what ways should their leadership differ from the Blair era?
which past Labour leaders have most inspired you, and why?
email your articles to ecarr@youngfabians.org.uk | deadline for submissions: 28th may 2007